If Jesus really was a miracle-working teacher who rose from the dead, why isn’t He mentioned by more 1st century historians?
by Erik Manning
Jesus of Nazareth was a highly influential teacher. He allegedly was a prophet with miraculous powers. He cast out demons, healed the sick, and even raised people from the dead. Then there’s the whole matter of his own resurrection. If Jesus was such a big deal, why isn’t he mentioned in the first and early second century beyond a few Christian sources? Wouldn’t Jesus have made more of an impact in his times?
This is a common complaint of skeptics, especially from the internet infidel crowd who question whether Jesus ever even existed. On the face of it, these questions appear reasonable, but history just doesn’t work this way.
THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE IS STILL A FALLACY EVEN WHEN APPLIED TO THE BIBLE
Now I hate to be the fallacy police, but this fallacious reasoning is called the argument from silence. You can’t cast doubt on a historical event that’s only mentioned in one source because you suppose that it should be mentioned in other sources. Here’s an example of this in action…